ADVERTISEMENT

senate composition must be changed

dherd

Platinum Buffalo
Feb 23, 2007
11,203
556
113
North Dakota is a very small state. Only 750,000 people. Yet as many senators as California or New York.
THIS DISCREPANCY IS RUINING OUR DEMOCRACY.
 
Creepy-Wrestler-OMG-Face_408x408.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio herd
North Dakota is a very small state. Only 750,000 people. Yet as many senators as California or New York.
THIS DISCREPANCY IS RUINING OUR DEMOCRACY.
We really have to get this mental health issue fixed in this country.
 
North Dakota is a very small state. Only 750,000 people. Yet as many senators as California or New York.
THIS DISCREPANCY IS RUINING OUR DEMOCRACY.

First, the structure of the US government at the legislative branch level is decidedly republic in form, not democratic, since the elected representatives of the people and the states vote on legislation (and not the citizens themselves).

Second, there are two houses of congress: (i) the House of REPRESENTATIVES, the composition of which is, ya know, based on the POPULATION and is (oddly enough) known as "the people's house"; and (ii) the Senate, which was formerly known as "the state's house" because the states were to be equally represented in assembling as the senate (at least until the 17th Amendment), and thus apportioned representation was not wanted or desired. OTHERWISE, the check-and-balance designed in the bicameral representation by the Senate and the House would be rendered a nullity and would have ceded all voting power to the states with the largest populations (note the irony compared to the OP).

Third, had the Constitution intended to provide a congress with only the people represented in apportionment to the population (and at the specific exclusion of state government representation), then a BICAMERAL system of congressional representation would be redundant. Only a single apportioned "chamber" (i.e., the House) would be necessary and would achieve the same non-republic end that "large population states" advocates push (which seems like an advocacy group in at least the dozens).

Fourth, and a little icing on top of this Percodan nut-log, to change the current structure, a Constitutional Amendment will be necessary, which will (LOL) require 2/3rds of each house or 2/3rds of the states to propose such a scheme and 3/4ths of the state legislatures or state conventions to ratify the proposal. Translation, even assuming this proposal reaches the ratification stage, even the bluest and leftist state is not going to risk state sovereignty (or whatever shred of that concept still exists) and vote for a constitutional amendment that strips less-populated states of their voice in the senate.

WHY DO YOU HATE THE REPUBLIC?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT